Very long, largely because the author's one of those people who can't stick to a subject and had to keep drifting off-topic for shots at Bush... But turning something not-exactly-related into an excuse for shots at Bush is really nothing special or unusual, nor is the blend of truth and lies involved therein. It's just the way some people are.
But more interestingly, even when sticking to the subject, the rebuttal's author had a real case to make but weakened it by trying to make too many points in total like it was a scoring contest, thus including some really weak or false points along with the good ones. Another way the rebuttal weakened its own points was by complaining about this fictional dominance of right-wing agendas in this country; when one is writing an article claiming someone else sounds whiny for complaining about liberalism's dominance of a certain area of culture, even if he WAS, it's hypocritical to respond by going into an even bigger and wider-scoping paranoid wine yourself, especially one that's unnecessary to what's supposed to be your point.
And I didn't read through the whole thing so I don't know if there were missed opportunities to make more valid points against this guy, although I doubt it based on the length and the play-by-play nature of it, but what kind of writer picks on the guy for a wussy French last name (DuToit) but misses the opportunity to pick on him for having a girl's first name?
Shyeesh, having a girl's first name could even be related to the whole point, since it might have something to do with how he got the way he is!
Edited by Delvo, 18 April 2004 - 04:31 PM.